Language in Community-Oriented and Contact-Oriented Domains: The Case of the Shughni of Tajikistan
Katja Müller, Elisabeth Abbess, Daniel Paul, Calvin Tiessen, and Gabriela Tiessen
SIL International 2010
SIL Electronic Survey Report 2010-016, May 2010 Copyright © 2009 Katja Müller, Elisabeth Abbess, Daniel Paul, Calvin Tiessen, Gabriela Tiessen, and SIL International All rights reserved
2
Contents Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 2.1. The Five Communities 2.1.1. Khorugh 2.1.2. Porshinev 2.1.3. Sardem (Ghund valley) 2.1.4. Roshtqal’a (Shokhdara valley) 2.1.5. Bajuv 2.2. Research Methods for the Five-Community Research 2.3. Research Methods for in the Urban Setting of Khorugh 3. Results 3.1. Language Use 3.1.1. Patterns of Use of Shughni 3.1.2. Patterns of Use of Tajik 3.1.3. Use of Language by Domains of Use 3.1.4. Patterns of Language Use in Khorugh 3.2. Language Attitudes 3.2.1. Perceived Benefits 3.2.2. Attitudes towards Language Use in Education and Literacy 3.3. Language Proficiency 4. Discussion 4.1. Language Use 4.1.1. Language Use in Community—versus Contact-Oriented Domains 4.1.2. Opportunities and Language Use Choices 4.2. Language Attitudes 4.3. Language Proficiency 5. Conclusion Appendix References 3
Abstract* This paper presents the results of sociolinguistic research conducted between July 2003 and August 2004 among the Shughni people living in the western part of Badakhshan in Tajikistan. The primary goals of the research were to investigate domains of use of and attitudes towards both Shughni and Tajik. Of particular interest is the correlation between levels of proficiency in Tajik and access to Tajik and the correlation between domains and patterns of language use. Data were gathered through a set of questionnaires, including language use questionnaires, language proficiency questionnaires, and a language attitude questionnaire.
1. Introduction th The recorded history of the Shughni reaches back to the 7 century AD (Sokolova 1966). Living under different empires in the demanding environment of the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan and Afghanistan, the Shughni developed a unique culture. In this paper, we examine the role of the Shughni and Tajik languages in the lives of the Shughni people. The Shughni traditional homeland includes the Shughnon1 and Roshtqal’a administrative regions2 in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Province (GBAP) of Tajikistan and part of Badakshan Province of Afghanistan. According to Davlatnazarov (1992), 25,000 Shughni live in Afghanistan along the Shiva River in Badakshan. Shughnon, with a population of 36,000, and Roshtqal’a, with a population of 21,500, are almost entirely Shughni. A small number of Shughni also live in valley of the Bajuv River in Rūshon just north of Shughnon. In addition to these regions in the Pamir Mountains, Shughni live in other areas of Tajikistan, including the capital of Dushanbe and the area around the town of Shartuz. In this paper, we concentrate on the Shughni living in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan. The Shughni in Shughnon and Roshtqal’a live along the Panj River and in the valleys of the Bajuv, Ghund and Shokhdara Rivers. (See figure 1.) Khorugh, the administrative centre of the GBAP as well as Shughnon, has always been a main population centre of the Shughni. It has developed into the educational and medical centre for the whole administrative region. Roshtqal’a, formerly part of Shughnon, became a separate administrative region in 1992. Shughnon and Roshtqal’a are bordered by Rūshon to the north, Murghob to the east, Ishkoshim to the south, and the Panj River, which separates Tajikistan and Afghanistan, on the west. Roshtqal’a and Ishkoshim are separated by mountains and the only road link is the main road from Khorugh to Ishkoshim centre. There are, however, direct road links between Shughnon and Rūshon and between Shughnon, Roshtqal’a, and Murghob. In addition, a bridge outside Khorugh connects Shughnon to Afghanistan.
* This report is based on research conducted by a team working under the North Eurasia Group of SIL International. We would like to express gratitude to the National State University of Tajikistan, under whose auspices the research for this paper was conducted. We would also like to thank the officials of the GBAP, and of Shughnon, Rūshon, and Roshtqal’a. Our research would not have been possible without the help of Azatsho Nasreddinshoyev, a linguist at Khorog State University. Finally, we are grateful for the hospitality of the residents of the villages in which we conducted our research. This article originally appeared in John M. Clifton, ed. 2005. Studies in Languages of Tajikistan, 151–185. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: National State University of Tajikistan and St. Petersburg, Russia: SIL International. This volume is available from John Clifton, who can be contacted at
Figure 1: Map of Shughni region
Most Shughni belong to the Ismaili branch of Shi’a Islam. According to tradition, Ismaili Islam was brought to Badakhshan by Nasir Khusrav around 1000 AD. The spiritual head of Ismaili is the Aga Khan. Through his initiative, the Aga Khan Development Network, a network of nongovernmental organizations, has been active in relief work and education since the beginning of the 1990s. Like Sokolova (1966), Grimes (2000) claims that Shughni is one of five dialects that make up a single language,3 the other dialects being Rushani, Khufi, Bartangi and Roshorvi.4 While the speakers of all five dialects refer to the language as Pamiri, no researcher has used this name. Instead, most researchers have used the term Pamiri to refer to all the languages spoken in the Pamirs, including also Yazghulami, Wakhi, and Ishkashimi. Grimes uses Shughni as the name of both the dialect and the language including the other four dialects. According to Grimes (2000), the Shughni, Sariqoli, and Yazghulami languages make up the Shughni-Yazgulami family of Eastern Iranian languages. Davlatnazarov (1992) speaks of four varieties within Shughni: a variety spoken in and around Khorugh, a variety spoken along the Ghund river, and two varieties spoken along the Shokhdara River. Dodykhudoeva (1997) states that the variety spoken along the upper half of the Shokhdara River, Bovarsky, is nearly extinct. One additional variety, Bajuvi, shares features with both Shughni and Rushani. Karamshoev (1963) classifies Bajuvi as a variety of Shughni, not of Rushani.5
3 Edelman and Juchufbekov (2000) agree that these varieties all make up one group, but claim that Shughni and Rushani are closely related, but separate, languages. Both Edelman and Juchufbekov (2000) and Sokolova (1966) refer to this group as the Shughni-Rushani group. 4 Grimes, following Soviet scholars, refers to the fifth dialect as Oroshor. This is a result of a misunderstanding. The correct name of this group is Roshorvi. 5 The Bajuvi identify themselves with the Shughni, not the Rushani. It is possible that this is due to the fact that greater prestige is associated with the Shughni. 5
Although Shughni is not a literary language, several attempts have been made to establish an alphabet for it. In 1930–1931, an alphabet was created based on the Latin script, but it was abandoned a few years later when all Latin-based orthographies in the Soviet Union were replaced by Cyrillic-based orthographies. A number of scripts are currently being used. Two Cyrillic-based orthographies have been proposed: one that was created in the early 1990s using digraphs, and one created by Karamshoev in 1996 using diacritics. Karamshoev and Alamshoev (1996) published a primer using Karamshoev’s orthography. In addition to these Cyrillic-based orthographies, scholars at Khorog State University are currently using a Latin-based orthography. The Shughni people have a long history of being multilingual. During Soviet times, the Russian language played a major role in the area as the language of inter-ethnic communication, that is, the language of wider communication (LWC), and the language of education and science. While it is still valued highly, it does not play a significant role in the daily life of the Shughni community. Instead, Tajik, the national language of Tajikistan, is the administrative language in the GBAP, the language of education and the LWC. More recently, English and Farsi have gained prominence in the Shughni-speaking regions. In spite of the importance of other languages, Shughni has also traditionally played a prominent role in the region. Since Khorugh is the administrative centre for the GBAP, people groups from other parts of the GBAP frequently travel into or live in Shughni-speaking areas. Shughni has served as the LWC for interactions in these settings. Research in the languages of the Pamirs can be traced back to two German researchers, Tomashek and Geiger, at the end of the nineteenth century (Tomashek 1880, Geiger 1895–1901). Although overall these languages received considerable attention from Russian and Soviet scientists, only a few described Shughni itself. Sokolova and R. Kh. Dodyhkodoev were the main researchers of Shughni during the past century (Sokolova 1966, Dodyhkodoev 1977), while Karamshoev described the Bajuvi dialect of Shughni (Karamshoev 1963). More recently, L. R. Dodyhkodoeva has studied linguistic, comparative lexicographic, and sociolinguistic aspects of Shughni (Dodyhkodoeva 1997, 1999, 2003). None of these researchers, however, have made extensive studies of the language use patterns within the Shughni communities. The research discussed in this paper focuses on the domains of use of both Shughni and Tajik and proficiency in both languages in the Shughni communities. In our research, we examined language use patterns, opportunities for and attitudes towards the use of Shughni and Tajik, and resulting levels of proficiency in each language. On the basis of our preliminary research, we developed the following hypotheses: 1. Shughni and Tajik are used in different domains of life (although the domains might overlap). 2. Shughni people have a positive attitude towards both their own language and Tajik. 3. Proficiency in Tajik is more dependent on the actual opportunities for use than on attitudes towards it. In the following section, the methods used in our research will be described. In section 3, we present the results of our investigations. Finally, in section 4, we discuss our results within a framework of contact versus community-oriented domains adapted from Greenfield (1970).
2. Methodology In July 2003, we conducted research in five Shughni communities. The purpose of this research was to gain a general understanding of the overall situation in the region. We followed this up in July and August 2004 by further research concentrating on the complexities of language use patterns in the urban centre of Khorugh. In section 2.1 we describe the five communities that we visited in July 2003. Then, in sections 2.2 and 2.3, we outline the methodology we used in the two research periods. 2.1. The Five Communities Three of the primary factors we used to select the five Shughni communities to study were geographical location within the Shughni region, location on the rural/urban continuum, and degree of isolation. We felt that these factors would have strong effects on opportunities for language use. In addition, we tried to include representative communities from the various dialects. Finally, four of the five communities had some special significance within the broader Shughni context. 6
A community’s position along the urban/rural continuum was determined by a number of factors, including the size of the community and its status in the administrative district6 as administrative centre, local centre or non-centre. Isolation is determined by how close the community is to a main road and the availability of transportation outside the local area. We determined the significance of a particular community within the broader Shughni context on the basis of our background research, as confirmed by a linguist from Khorog State University who became our guide on this research. In addition to table 1 (on the following page), which gives an overview of the five locations chosen, we will discuss each of the locations in greater detail in the rest of this section. 2.1.1. Khorugh
Khorugh is the administrative centre of the GBAP and is the most urban of the locations we visited. It is connected with the rest of the GBAP, the rest of Tajikistan, and Osh in Kyrgyzstan by road; and to Dushanbe with (weather permitting) daily flights. In winter and spring, landslides may cut off the roads for several days, but there is a high priority placed on reopening the roads as quickly as possible. Thus, the level of isolation is low. Because it is the administrative centre, we expected a fairly high amount of contact with Tajik speakers and widespread use of Tajik throughout the town. Over time Khorugh has developed into the educational and one of the cultural centres of the Shughni region. Khorog State University is well respected and a new university on the outskirts of the town is planned. Several middle schools7 and kindergartens are operated in Khorugh. In addition, a specialized middle school (lyceum), in which students can study in any of three languages (Tajik, English and Russian), is supported by the Aga Khan Foundation (AKF). The AKF, part of the Aga Khan Development Network, is based in Khorugh and has a considerable role in the development of the town and the whole region. As the centre of the administrative region, Khorugh has a central hospital that receives patients referred from the regional hospitals from the whole of the GBAP. Several other hospitals and general clinics are also located in the town.
6 Following the Soviet system, a number of villages are organized into a jamoat, (selsoviet in Russian) referred to here as an administrative district, with a single mayor serving the entire district. One of the villages is the administrative centre for the district. 7 A middle school minimally has grades 1–8; most have grades 1–11. 7
Table 1: Community descriptions Khorugh Porshinev Sardem Roshtqal’a Bajuv Population 27,914/ 7,929/ 539/ 2,789/ 423/ (people/ 4,637 402 78 383 70 homes) Urban/ Urban Semi-urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Isolation Low Low High Middle High Admin N/A* Shughnon Shughnon Roshtqal’a Rūshon Region Dialect Khorugh Khorugh Ghund Shokhdara Bajuvi Confluence of Upper Geographic Shokhdara Bajuv Panj, Ghund, Panj valley Ghund Location valley valley Shokhdara valley Significance Administrative Religious, Cultural, within centre of the intellectual artistic Dialect Shughni GBAP centre centre Context * Although Khorugh is contained within the Shughnon administrative region, it is a separate administrative unit.
2.1.2. Porshinev Porshinev was chosen because it has been a cultural, educational, and religious centre for the Shughnon area for several centuries. It is situated on the road from Khorugh to Dushanbe and a regular taxi and minibus service is available in both directions. Porshinev is a district consisting of eight villages. Our research focused on the village of Medinshor, the administrative centre of the district. In addition to being the administrative centre, Medinshor has a middle school with associated boarding facilities, a small hospital with a clinic, and even a small museum. The importance of this community as a cultural, educational and religious centre is reflected in the fact that more than fifty percent of school graduates go on to higher education. Over the centuries, many halifa (religious leaders) have lived there, including Nasir Khusrav. One of the present halifa is highly influential within the Ismaili community. 2.1.3. Sardem (Ghund valley) Sardem represents rural Shughni communities in the upper valleys. It is situated in the upper Ghund valley, two kilometres off the road from Khorugh to Murghob. It belongs to the Vanqal’a administrative district. As is typical for rural Shughni villages, Sardem has a middle school with preparatory class and a small medical centre with trained nurses but no doctor. It has no market, but merchants travel through on an irregular basis. In spite of the high level of isolation, most of the young men travel to Russia to find work. Outside of this travel, however, only a minority of the village population goes further than the surrounding villages for either visiting or business. 2.1.4. Roshtqal’a (Shokhdara valley) Roshtqal’a is a new administrative centre situated in the Shokhdara Valley. Since the Roshtqal’a administrative region separated from Shughnon in 1992, Roshtqal’a has increasingly developed from a relatively rural community into an urban community with its own market, regular minibus services to Khorugh, and two middle schools. The regional hospital in Roshtqal’a has developed into a training centre for medical and volunteer staff from the entire Roshtqal’a region. Roshtqal’a, as part of the Shokhdara Valley, has long been known within the Shughni community for its artistic activities in the same way that Porshinev is known for its religious activities. 2.1.5. Bajuv Bajuv, like Sardem, is an isolated rural community. We chose to visit it primarily because it is the home of a dialect of Shughni that held the attention of linguists of the former Soviet Union. The village of Bajuv 8 is situated in Rūshon some ten kilometres off the main road from Khorugh to Dushanbe. Bajuv itself is a highly isolated and small rural community with no markets or stores, and no medical facilities. A small middle school with preparatory classes is situated in the village. According to the school director, the birth rate has dropped dramatically due to the economic situation. Within the next few years, she expects there will be at least one year in which there will be no new preparatory class in the school. Bajuv forms a district with the village of Pastbajuv. Families from Bajuv founded Pastbajuv on the main road in the 1930s when the land could no longer support the number of people living in Bajuv. Residents of Bajuv must walk ten kilometres to Pastbajuv to gain access to regular taxi and minibus services to the administrative centre Vomar, the rest of Rūshon, and Khorugh. 2.2. Research Methods for the Five-Community Research In this section, we outline the methods used during our research in all five communities during our first period of research in July, 2003. The focus in this section is on two aspects of our methodology: our sampling methods and the questionnaires we used. In all locations, we began by interviewing the local administrators. We were introduced to them by a linguist from Khorog State University who travelled with us and helped to explain the purposes of our research. The local administrators, in turn, identified local educational, medical, and religious leaders for us to interview, and helped us to make contact with them. In all five locations, we interviewed at least a school director and medical personnel. In Khorugh and Roshtqal’a, we also interviewed the directors of local kindergartens, and in Sardem, Porshinev, and Bajuv we also interviewed religious leaders. The foci of the interviews with these administrators and local leaders were both general information and patterns of language use in their field of expertise. A questionnaire designed for use with local administrators focused on basic demographic information about the population, and the socio-economic and educational situation of each location. Data gained in these interviews gave us an overview of immigration trends and confirmed or corrected the hypotheses about the isolation and the cultural or religious significance of the community. In the case of ethnic Shughni administrators and local leaders, we also asked about their personal patterns of language use, attitudes towards various languages, and proficiency in various languages. In three communities, Bajuv, Khorugh and Sardem, we asked one or more of the local leaders to help us arrange to interview both men and women from the community representing different age groups. While the resulting sample was not random, obtaining a random sample would not have been culturally appropriate. The fact that we were able to interview both men and women of different age groups helps to ensure that the information gathered was reasonably representative of the entire community. We interviewed these women and men either individually or in small groups in the house of the local leader. In the other two communities, Roshtqal’a and Porshinev, we were able to interview members of the community at the market and on the street. This allowed us to choose interviewees more randomly. In Roshtqal’a, we interviewed five individual men and a group of women at the market, while in Porshinev, we interviewed a group of younger men and a pair of two middle-aged men we met on the street. We used a number of questionnaires in these interviews, covering patterns of language use, attitudes towards various languages, and proficiency in various languages. Not all respondents, however, were asked to answer either all the questionnaires or all the questions on a specific questionnaire. These questionnaires included the following: • language use questionnaires to gain information about community networks and patterns of language use in various functional and social domains of life, • a language attitude questionnaire to evaluate the perceived benefit of Shughni and Tajik in six different domains of life, including communication (within the local community), earning money, gaining respect, family communication, religion, and information (about the outside world), and • language proficiency questionnaires in which individuals or groups evaluated their own proficiency in Tajik and were then asked to think of individuals or families whose Tajik proficiency was either lower, higher, or equal than their own and give reasons for the perceived differences. 9
2.3. Research Methods for in the Urban Setting of Khorugh As indicated previously, in July and August 2004, we spent ten days researching patterns of language use in the urban setting of Khorugh. Once again, the focus in this section is on two aspects of our methodology: our sampling methods and the questionnaires we used in this research setting. The sampling method used at this stage of the research was typological. We tried to identify types of people who might show differences in their patterns of language use, language attitudes and levels of proficiency. Potential respondents were categorised on the basis of five factors: employment, education, age, gender, and ethnicity. Each of these factors has from two to six possible values, as listed in table 2. Table 2: Factors and their possible values Employment Education Age Gender Ethnicity Government Higher 16–30 Men Shughni Education Technical 30–55 Women Other Pamiri Medical Middle over 55 Tajik High contact Local Others Local Non-local None Our research from 2003 suggested that the most important factor was employment. People working in government offices and in high contact jobs seemed to use Tajik on a daily basis. Government employment includes administrative positions in Khorugh, and positions in cultural centres and the media. Technically, it also includes education (both educators and students) and medical positions, but we decided to separate these out. High contact jobs include drivers, employees of NGOs, employees at army bases, and merchants at the market and in shops. Local jobs include those in farming, construction and care-giving. Pensioners and housewives were classified as unemployed. Different educational levels were expected to affect patterns of language use. Possible levels include middle school, technical school (including medical, pedagogical, and technical colleges) and higher education (university), as well as local and non-local job training. It was challenging to find respondents with lower levels of education, since a majority of Shughni in Khorugh have higher education. Different age groups have experienced different language policies over time. It was most difficult to find respondents in the 16–30 age group since most young people had left the city for summer vacation. Ethnicity was also expected to affect patterns of language use. While the majority of residents in Khorugh are either Shughni or some other Pamiri ethnicity, it is estimated that ten percent of the population of Khorugh are not ethnically Pamiri. Most of these are either students or are working temporarily in the government positions. We interviewed ninety people in Khorugh. At the time of our research, the student population of Khorugh was on summer vacation. Although this reduced the possibilities of interviewing non-Shughni people in Khorugh, we were able to interview thirteen non-Shughni. Table 3 summarizes the number of people in each non-Shughni ethnic group that we were able to interview. Table 3: Ethnicity of non-Shughni respondents Ethnicity Number Rushani 8 Wakhi 1 Tajik 2 Russian 2 Rushani were the most highly represented group with eight people interviewed. The two Russian women and two of the Tajik women are married to local men. The other Tajik woman works for the AKF. While the Wakhi woman was born in Khorugh, her parents were originally from Vrang in the Vakhon valley. 10
Table 4: Distribution according to employment, gender and education Higher Technical Middle Total Government 7 (2/5) 3 (2/1) 2 (0/2) 12 (4/8) Education 15 (7/8) 0 (0/0) 3 (0/3) 18 (7/11) Medical 5 (4/1) 8 (1/7) 2 (0/2) 15 (5/10) High Contact 10 (6/4) 6 (5/1) 6 (3/3) 22 (14/8) Local 0 (0/0) 1 (1/0) 4 (4/0) 5 (5/0) None 1 (0/1) 0 (0/0) 4 (2/2) 5 (2/3) Total 38 (19/19) 18 (9/9) 21 (9/12) 77 (37/40)
Table 4 shows the distribution of the seventy-seven Shughni in terms of employment, gender, and educational level. The numbers in brackets show the distribution between men and women.8 Nearly half of the people interviewed (38 of 77) had higher education. While this may seem high, reports from Soviet times stated that between 80 percent and 90 percent of the population of the GBAP had completed higher education. A young woman born in 1975 reported that only three from her class of eighteen did not go on to higher education. The percentage is even higher among those employed in government or education, where 22 of 30 had higher education. The three people in ‘employed’ in education who had only completed middle school were first year students studying at the university. Included in the medical profession are four doctors, a hospital manager, nine nurses and one pharmacist. The doctors and the hospital manager have higher education, while seven of the nurses and the pharmacist have a technical school education. The ten people in high contact jobs with higher education studied various subjects at university. Six of the ten now work with the AKF and two work at the market. Locally employed people have technical or middle school education. Two of the people without employment are pensioners and one works at home looking after small children. The distribution of people interviewed in terms of age, gender, and educational level is shown in table 5. Table 5: Distribution according to age, gender, and education Higher Technical Middle Total 16–30 16 (8/8) 1 (0/1) 6 (2/4) 23 (10/13) 31–55 20 (10/10) 15 (8/7) 11 (4/7) 46 (22/24) Over 55 2 (1/1) 2 (1/1) 4 (3/1) 8 (5/3) The fact that higher education is valued in the Shughni community is reflected by the distribution seen in table 5. Over two-thirds of the young people and over 40 percent of the middle-aged people have higher education. People with technical school and middle school educations are much more difficult to find and so are less represented in the sample. The questionnaire used in these interviews focused on patterns of language use and attitudes. It was divided into three primary sections: demographics, language use in social and functional domains, and perceived benefits of Shughni, Tajik, and Russian in three of the six domains of life outlined in section 2.2. In our initial research in 2003, attitudes regarding perceived benefits in the domains of family, religion, and information seemed clear. Attitudes in the domains of communication, earning money, and gaining respect, however, were much more diverse. In addition, we realised that Russian plays a larger role in Khorugh than in other Shughni communities. For these reasons, we asked about the perceived benefit of Shughni, Tajik, and Russian in the domains of communication, earning money, and gaining respect.
8 The raw data for tables 4 and 5 are given in the appendix. 11
3. Results We present our results in three sections: a description of language use in section 3.1, a description of attitudes towards different languages and the perceived benefits of each in section 3.2, and a description of reported language proficiency in section 3.3. 3.1. Language Use This section is divided into four parts. In sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 we examine the patterns of use of Shughni and Tajik, respectively, the two main languages used in the Shughni area. Then, in section 3.1.3, we look at language use from the perspective of the domains of use. Finally, in section 3.1.4, we examine patterns of language use in Khorugh. 3.1.1. Patterns of Use of Shughni In all the Shughni communities we visited, Shughni dominates most domains of daily life. Table 6 shows the functional and social domains in which Shughni is used and its degree of dominance in each domain. Table 6: Use of Shughni in various domains Functional Domains Social Domains Home Family Shughni First learnt Neighbours only Arguing With Children Unofficial setting: administration, work, education Market Shughni Friends Hospital dominant Guests Counting Cursing Official setting: administration, work, education Reading, Writing Shughni Religion Guests secondary Singing Travel outside the GBAP Not used Radio, TV The importance of Shughni in functional domains is inversely related to the perceived official importance or formality of the domain. When an event is high in formality or official importance, there is little use of the Shughni language. When an activity is informal, Shughni is likely to be the language used. This can be seen most clearly in domains like administration, employment and education that have both official and unofficial aspects. Unofficial aspects would include the time before and after official meetings, between and after classes in school and university, and with colleagues at work. In the domain of education, for example, Shughni is the dominant language in unofficial settings outside the classroom. In official settings in the classroom, however, it is secondary, with its use limited to the early grades when it is used to describe concepts that students do not understand in Tajik. In the most official domain of nationwide television and radio, Shughni does not play any role. When travelling outside the GBAP Shughni is only important for interaction with Shughni-speaking relatives; all other interaction will be in Tajik or Russian. In less official domains including the hospital, the market, or counting, Shughni is at least co- dominant with Tajik. Finally, in the most informal domains including the home and the language first learned, Shughni is used exclusively. In most social domains, Shughni is the dominant or sole language used. The role of Shughni with guests depends on the ethnic origin and the current place of residence of the guest. Shughni is the dominant language with guests who are Shughni or who have lived in a Shughni area for a reasonable amount of time. For guests who have not lived in a Shughni area very long, Tajik is used as the primary language, while Shughni is used less frequently. The importance of Shughni in both social and functional domains of life in the Shughni region is underscored by comments from various respondents. The director of the AKF lyceum in Khorugh reported that teachers coming from other areas of the country, or even from abroad to live and work in Khorugh, 12 will certainly learn Shughni. A young man from Vanj stated he learned Shughni while studying in Khorugh. Wakhi people interviewed in the Ishkoshim administrative region also verified this observation. 3.1.2. Patterns of Use of Tajik Tajik is the national language of the Republic of Tajikistan. As such, it is used as the language of administration, education, and media. Table 7 shows the functional and social domains in which Tajik is used and its degree of dominance in each domain. Table 7 is essentially a mirror image of table 6. The exceptions are in the media and in counting. In the media, Tajik is co-dominant with Russian. In counting, Shughni is used for numbers one through ten and Tajik is used for numbers greater than ten. Table 7: Use of Tajik in various domains Functional Domains Social Domains Official settings: administration, work, education Media: Radio, TV, news papers Counting Tajik Singing Guests dominant Reading, Writing Official setting Religion Travel Unofficial settings: administration, work, education Tajik Friends Unofficial setting secondary Guests Market Hospital Home Family Tajik not First language With Children used Cursing Neighbours Arguing Tajik is the language that dominates all functional domains that connect the Shughni with the world beyond the Pamir Mountains. This includes the areas of administration and education. Only in exceptional circumstances is a language other than Tajik used to assist the local people with administrative matters. At the age of six, children attend a preparatory class in order to acquire basic Tajik language skills before beginning grade one. In two locations, Khorugh and Roshtqal’a, kindergarten is offered in Tajik for children three to six years of age. When travelling outside the GBAP, Tajik becomes the dominant language. Tajik has been the dominant language for religious gatherings for centuries. In unofficial settings, on the street, in the market, or in hospital Tajik plays only a secondary role as the vernacular is used among Shughni speakers. Tajik functions as LWC between different ethnic groups in the market or the hospital. Tajik plays no major role in the home, although a few individual parents in Khorugh, Porshinev, and Roshtqal’a reported that they use Tajik with their children to give them a good start in school. Tajik is not used at all between neighbours who speak Shughni. While respondents in Khorugh and Porshinev reported Tajik might be used with friends who do not speak Shughni, respondents in other locations reported that Tajik is never used with friends. 3.1.3. Use of Language by Domains of Use In this section, we summarize the use of Shughni and Tajik in the range of functional and social domains discussed above. Table 8 and table 9 present an overview of our findings. In both tables, ‘S’ represents Shughni, ‘T’ Tajik, ‘R’ Russian and ‘A’ Arabic; a capital letter indicates the language is dominant and a lower case letter indicates it is secondary. Where two or more capital letters appear the languages are considered to be co-dominant. Patterns of language use in functional domains are summarized in table 8. 13
Table 8: Patterns of language use in functional domains Domain Language Home S First learned S Official settings: administration, work, education s T r Unofficial settings: work, school, university S t Market S t r Travel outside the GBAP s T Hospital S t r Reading s T r Writing s T Media: radio, TV t R Religion s T A Counting S T Cursing, arguing S Shughni is used in all functional domains of life with the exception of the media, although it plays a secondary role in official settings. Tajik is used in most functional domains, and is the dominant language in official settings. Patterns of language use in social domains are summarized in table 9. Table 9: Patterns of language use in social domains Domain Language Family S With Children S t Neighbours S Friends S t Guests S T Shughni dominates the social domains of life. Tajik is not dominant in any of the social domains, although it is co-dominant in speaking with guests. 3.1.4. Patterns of Language Use in Khorugh We expected language use patterns in Khorugh to differ according to the five factors of employment, education, age, gender, and ethnicity. In many functional and social domains of life, however, the factors of employment, education, age, and gender do not seem to affect patterns of language use. Table 10 summarizes these domains and patterns of language use. 14
Table 10: Patterns of language use in Khorugh in domains unaffected by conditioning factors Functional Domains Social Domains Home Family Shughni First learned Neighbours only Arguing With Children Unofficial settings Shughni Counting Friends dominant Cursing* Guests Official setting Religion Tajik Singing dominant Media* Travel outside the GBAP * Secondary language: Russian Shughni is the only language used in unofficial settings, for arguing, in the home, and with family, children, and neighbours. No one in Khorugh reported using Tajik with their children. Shughni is still dominant when interacting with friends and guests, but Tajik is also used with friends and guests according to ethnicity and language abilities and out of respect for the other person. When counting, Shughni is used for numbers from one through ten, and Tajik is used for numbers above ten. For cursing, Shughni is supplemented by Russian, not Tajik. There is no domain in which only Tajik is used. Tajik is dominant in the domains of religion and singing, which are closely related to each other. In media, including both television and radio, Tajik is becoming dominant as a result of the recent increase in broadcasting in Tajik in the Pamir region, although Russian television programs are still watched by a large number of people, as well. While patterns of language use are uniform in the domains included in table 10, there are two domains in which patterns of language use show variation: the functional domains of official settings and work. As indicated above, we expected the four factors of employment, education, gender, and age to influence patterns of language use in Khorugh. In actual fact, education proved to not affect patterns of language use appreciably. Employment and gender, however, affected patterns of use in both official settings and work, while age affected patterns of use in work. Table 11 shows how employment affects patterns of language use in the workplace. In this and the following tables, the category ‘Other Language Dominant’ includes people for whom the dominant language used is either Russian or English. The secondary language in such cases can be either Shughni or Tajik. Table 11: Patterns of language use at work in Khorugh as affected by employment9 Employment Shughni Shughni Tajik Tajik only Other Lang only dominant dominant dominant Government 36.4% 18.2% 36.4% 0.0% 9.1% Education 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 37.5% 12.5% High contact 18.2% 54.5% 9.1% 0.0% 18.2% Medical 33.3% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% Local 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Tajik is used most extensively by people working in government or education; the only people who only use Tajik for work are all employed in education. In medical and high contact professions, Shughni is
9 The raw data for tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 are given in the appendix. 15 dominant, although the secondary language is different in the two professions: in high contact jobs it is Tajik, while in the medical profession, it is Russian. Table 12 shows how employment affects patterns of language use in official settings. Table 12: Patterns of language use in official settings in Khorugh as affected by employment Employment Shughni Shughni Tajik Tajik only Other Lang only dominant dominant dominant Government 0.0% 36.4% 9.1% 45.5% 9.1% Education 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 75.0% 0.0% High contact 5.0% 0.0% 30.0% 60.0% 5.0% Medical 6.7% 6.7% 53.3% 6.7% 26.7% Local 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 0.0% None 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 20.0% In official settings, Tajik is used more widely than Shughni in all employment categories. It is used as the sole language by 75 percent of those in education and by 60 percent of those employed in high contact professions or locally. Tajik is used solely, dominantly, or co-dominantly with Russian by 90 percent of those in high contact professions, 87.5 percent of those in education, 80 percent of those employed locally, and 60 percent of those in medical professions. The role of Russian is also greater in official settings, especially within the medical profession. It is used as the primary or secondary language in official settings by 60 percent of those in the medical profession. Table 13 shows the effects of age and gender on patterns of language use in the workplace. Table 13: Patterns of language use in Khorugh in work as affected by gender and age Gender Age Shughni Shughni Tajik Tajik only Other only dominant dominant dominant 16–30 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 28.6% 14.3% Men 31–55 36.4% 45.5% 4.5% 0.0% 13.6% > 55 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 16–30 25.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 25.0% Women 31–55 18.2% 31.8% 27.3% 9.1% 13.6% > 55 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% In the workplace, the percentage of men using only Shughni decreases with age from 60 percent for men over 55 to 28.6 percent for men under 31. Even for the youngest two age groups, however, Shughni is either the only or dominant language for 57.2 percent of those under 31 and for 81.9 percent of those between the ages of 31 and 55. Turning to women, Shughni is the only or dominant language used at work by 50 percent of the women aged 31–55, and 41.7 percent of those 30 and under. Table 14 shows the effects of gender on patterns of language use in official settings. Table 14: Patterns of language use at work in Khorugh as affected by gender Gender Shughni only Shughni Tajik Tajik only Other dominant dominant dominant Men 2.8% 16.7% 16.7% 52.8% 11.1% Women 8.3% 5.6% 33.3% 44.4% 8.3% Both men and women are much more likely to use Tajik in official settings than in other settings. Women, however, are more likely than men to use Shughni in such settings. 3.2. Language Attitudes In a multilingual setting, it is important to account for attitudes towards the various languages being used. In the process of determining the vitality of each of the languages in use, it is critical to assess attitudes. Our first impression was that the Shughni do not think highly of their mother tongue. Shughni was commonly characterised as being useful “to the airport,” that is, it is useful in the region, but not 16 outside the GBAP. With further conversation, however, a different picture slowly emerged. All people interviewed agreed that children should learn Shughni first. An overwhelming majority of those interviewed in all five locations think Shughni should be the language of the home; in fact, only one person interviewed felt Tajik should be used in the home to give children a better start in life. While Tajik is valued as the national language, the language of interethnic communication and for its historical role in literature and religion, its role is limited to apparently well-defined domains. In the rest of this section, we examine two aspects of attitudes towards the languages used in the Shughni communities. First, we examine the benefits that speakers perceive each language has. After that, we look at attitudes towards the various languages in the domains of education and literacy. 3.2.1. Perceived Benefits During our initial research in 2003, we adapted the methodology of Stalder and Karan (2000), asking respondents to indicate how important they felt Shughni and Tajik were in six domains: family life, religion, receiving information about the world, interpersonal communication in the community, earning money, and gaining respect. Possible responses were ‘unimportant’, ‘somewhat important’, ‘important’, 3= Very Important, 2= Important, 1= Somewhat Important, 0= Unimportant and ‘very important’. Responses were given point values from 0 for ‘unimportant’ to 3 for ‘very important’. The point values of all respondents in each location were then averaged to determine an overall value for perceived benefits in each location. In the domains of family, religion, and information, the results did not differ significantly between the five locations. The results in these domains are shown in figure 2. For family life, Shughni is perceived as very important and Tajik as unimportant. This correlates with the fact that respondents use Shughni as language of the home and with children. Tajik, on the other hand, is seen as very important for religion and information, while Shughni considerably less important for both.
Figure 2: Perceived benefits of Shughni and Tajik for family, religion and information
3
2
Shughni Tajiki
1
0 Family Religion Information
The situation was more complicated in the domains of communication, earning money and gaining respect, since the perceived benefits for Tajik differed widely between the five communities. Figure 3 shows the average of the perceived benefits of Shughni for these three domains by community. 17
Figure 3: Perceived benefits of Shughni for communication, earning money, and respect
3
2 Bajuv Sardem Roshkala Porshinev 1 Khorugh
0 Communication Earn Money Respect
3= Very Important, 2= Important, 1= Somewhat Important, 0= Unimportant Shughni is seen as very important (at least 2.5) for communication in all locations, important (from 1.8 to 2.5) for earning money, and very important (from 2.6 to 3.0) for gaining respect. Figure 4 shows the average of the perceived benefits of Tajik for these three domains by community. Figure 4: Perceived benefits of Tajik for communication, earning money, and respect
3
2 Bajuv Sardem Roshkala Porshinev 1 Khorugh
0 Communication Earn Money Respect 3= Very Important, 2= Important, 1= Somewhat Important, 0= Unimportant In the town of Khorugh, Tajik is considered to be very important or important in all three domains, especially for earning money. In the villages of Bajuv and Roshtqal’a, Tajik is also perceived as very important for earning money, but is perceived as considerably less important in the other two domains. In the village of Sardem, Tajik is perceived as less important overall than it is in Khorugh, Bajuv, and Roshtqal’a. Like the other three communities, however, it is seen as most important in the domain of earning money as well as in the domain of communication. Porshinev exhibits very different patterns than the other four communities. In Porshinev, Tajik is perceived as most important in the domain of gaining respect. It is only considered moderately important for earning money, and is even less important for communication. Examining the data from the perspective of the domains, Tajik is perceived, in general, to be most important for earning money: it is considered very important in Bajuv, Roshtqal’a and Khorugh, important in Sardem, and somewhat less important in Porshinev. In the domain of communication, it is considered to be important in Sardem, Khorugh and Roshtqal’a, and only somewhat important in Bajuv and Porshinev. The greatest degree of diversity is in the domain of gaining respect, where Tajik is very important in Porshinev and Khorugh, important in Roshtqal’a, but only somewhat important in Sardem and Bajuv. 18
Russian seems to have a place in society, although its role is decreasing as the role of Tajik increases. This is true even in Khorugh, although the Russian language plays a much more important role there than in other parts of the Shughni region. During our research in 2003, respondents in Khorugh made specific reference to Russian during discussions of the benefits of Shughni and Tajik in the three domains of communication, earning money, and gaining respect. Therefore, during our research in 2004 we investigated the perceived benefits of all three languages in these three domains. Figure 5 shows the results of our research. Figure 5: Perceived benefits of Shughni, Tajik and Russian in Khorugh
3
2 Shughni Tajik Russian 1
0 Communication Earn Money Respect
3= Very Important, 2= Important, 1= Somewhat Important, 0= Unimportant Shughni is by far the most important language for communication, with Russian nearly as important as Tajik. Russian is perceived as important for communication with the Kyrgyz population of Murghob and members of the Russian army bases in Khorugh. Tajik is seen as important for communication with the Tajik population within the Tajik-speaking areas of the GBAP and north of Vanj and with members of the regional administration. Tajik and Russian are seen as most important for earning money, although Shughni is perceived as only a little less important in this domain. Shughni and Tajik are both perceived as important for gaining respect, although Russian is perceived as a little less important in this domain. In the domain of gaining respect, nearly 25 percent of the respondents (15 of 62) valued all three languages the same, either as important or as unimportant. 3.2.2. Attitudes towards Language Use in Education and Literacy The Shughni highly value education, and learning languages is a source of pride to them. Respondents in all locations consistently want their children to learn as many languages as possible in school, including Tajik, Russian, English, and Farsi. These languages are seen as “useful” languages, that is, languages that enable young people to attain educational and economic success, especially beyond the Pamirs. Shughni people value the few books they have in their own language. Most of these books are poetry. In Sardem, the people were not only very proud of the one book they had in Shughni, they were able to fluently read the poems in it. The halifa of Porshinev stated that it would be good to translate religious books into Shughni. While the Shughni we talked to indicated they would like their children to learn to read Shughni, we did not find many efforts to put this desire into practice. There was near unanimity that Tajik is the best language for school. The one person who indicated that children should begin school in Shughni still wanted all children to learn Tajik and Russian in school. There were widely varying opinions among educators regarding whether Shughni language classes should be offered in the schools. Classes comparing Shughni with related dialects are offered in grades one through four at one school in the Roshtqal’a region. These classes are taught in Shughni. The school director in Sardem would like to introduce Shughni language classes, while the director in one school in Roshtqal’a actually had a Shughni language program ready for use, but no rooms or teachers for it. Other directors in Bajuv, Roshtqal’a and Porshinev, on the other hand, thought teaching Shughni language was 19 not useful. The directors in Bajuv and Roshtqal’a felt it is hard enough for the students to learn Tajik well, while the director in Porshinev said another language would overwhelm the students as they already deal with four languages at school. 3.3. Language Proficiency In all research locations, respondents reported that the level of proficiency in Shughni was uniformly high throughout the community among ethnic Shughni. The reason given for this was that Shughni is used for all communication within the community. Ethnic Shughni who have grown up outside the Pamirs are perceived to have a lower level of proficiency in Shughni. In Porshinev and Khorugh, we were told that Shughni speakers who move to the Shughni region from elsewhere need two to three weeks before they are able to participate fully in community life. Wives and students at the universities in Khorugh with a mother tongue other than Shughni were also perceived to have a slightly lower level of proficiency in Shughni. In all research locations, the teachers were perceived to have the highest level of proficiency in Tajik. In Khorugh, Roshtqal’a, and Porshinev, we were told that people who work for the government or who work in jobs in which they frequently interact with Tajik speakers also exhibit high levels of proficiency in Tajik. Most people we interviewed rated themselves as having an average level of proficiency in Tajik, and were able to name people or families with levels above and below their own. In Khorugh, Roshtqal’a, and Porshinev, the local government officials reported that they would translate from Tajik into Shughni for older people because their Tajik proficiency was too low due to low levels of education and little contact with Tajik speakers. In Bajuv, Sardem, and Porshinev, the halifa reported a need to translate from Tajik into Shughni for older people during religious activities. In Bajuv, the halifa indicated that about ten percent of those who attend the weekly prayers do not understand Tajik well and need at least some translation into Shughni.
The director of the AKF lyceum in Khorugh stated that about twenty percent of students know a little Tajik when beginning school. This is, however, a specialized school, and so probably attracts more highly prepared students. According to parents, teachers and school directors, most children know only Shughni before starting school; their first contact with Tajik usually begins when entering school. A few children in Khorugh and Roshtqal’a achieve some proficiency in Tajik before beginning grade one by attending kindergarten. There is general agreement among school directors and personnel that all students speak Tajik well by the time they finish middle school. There was, however, less agreement concerning how quickly students reach this level. School directors in Bajuv, Roshtqal’a, and Porshinev reported that students master Tajik within the first one or two years of school. Other observations, however, indicate that this claim is questionable at best. The school directors and teachers in Khorugh and Sardem estimated that students reach satisfactory levels of proficiency in Tajik only after completing grade three or four. A mathematics teacher in Khorugh said that children in the fifth grade understand Tajik well, but cannot express their thoughts. His estimate was that many students were not able to communicate freely in Tajik until grade nine. Even in Bajuv one of the teachers indicated it was necessary to use Shughni up through grade five for explanations, and the director in Porshinev reported that when teaching foreign languages Shughni is used to explain words even in the higher grades. Our own observations in classroom settings substantiated the claim that many students have not mastered Tajik by the end of grade four or five. While most students are reported to have mastered Tajik by the time they finish middle school, one teacher reported that about ten to thirteen percent of the students never master Tajik. These students are said to come from families in which the parents have a poor level of proficiency in Tajik and do not encourage their children to learn Tajik.
4. Discussion In section 3, we saw that the domains in which Tajik and Shughni were used are basically mirror images. This suggests that we should be able to divide the domains into two major categories. Shughni would be the dominant language of use in one category, while Tajik would be the dominant language of use in the other category. In this vein, various attempts have been made to analyse and systematize domains of 20 language use and patterns of language choice connected with them. Greenfield10 (1970) proposes that all domains of language use can be categorised as either intimate domains or status domains. Intimate domains include family and friendship, while status domains include religion, education, and employment. This division is close to what we have seen in the Shughni situation, with Shughni being the dominant language of use in intimate domains and Tajik being the dominant language of use in status domains. Greenfield characterised the two domains in terms of three factors: people, place, and topics (of conversation). The factor of people refers to the participants in an interaction; the factor of place refers to where the interaction occurs; and the factor of topics refers to what the interaction is about. In the case of the Shughni, the domains are characterised primarily in terms of place. Although the other two factors, people and topic, play a limited role, they are subordinate to place. Reflecting the importance of the factor of place in understanding the situation among the Shughi, we will use the term community-oriented domains instead of intimate domains, and contact-oriented domains instead of status domains.
In terms of place, community domains are limited to the Shughni-speaking area in the GBAP or to a Shughni-speaking home outside the GBAP. Within the Shughni population of the GBAP, contact-oriented domains include domains that reach into the community from the outside or in which the community reaches out beyond its own limits. In addition to place, person and topic play secondary roles in determining whether a domain is community-oriented or contact-oriented. Person can be important in the domain of guests. If the guest is a Shughni speaker, the encounter will be community-oriented, while if the guest is a non-Shughni speaker, the encounter will be contact-oriented. Similarly, the ethnicity of the patient will generally determine whether an encounter in a hospital will be community- or contact-oriented. A Shughni speaker keeps the encounter community-oriented, while the presence of a non-Shughni speaker results in a contact-oriented domain, even if the encounter occurs in the village. Topic can be important in determining the official versus unofficial distinction presented above. In official places like government buildings or schools, the domain would normally be determined by whether the topic is part of an official meeting or general discussion before or after the meeting. Similarly, weddings and other religious celebrations contain topics that are formal and, therefore, contact-oriented, and topics that are informal and, therefore, community-oriented. Topics that intrinsically involve situations outside the community are contact-oriented, even when the encounter is in the village, while topics that intrinsically involve situations in the community are community-oriented, even when the encounter is in a government building. Table 15 categorises all the functional and social domains of language use that have been examined in this paper as either community-oriented or contact-oriented.
10 The presentation here is based on the description of Greenfield’s work in Fasold (1984). 21
Table 15: Community and contact orientation of language use domains Functional Domains Social Domains Unofficial settings: Administration, work, education Family Market With Children Community- Hospital Neighbours oriented domains Home Friends First learnt language Guests Counting Cursing, Arguing Official settings: Administration, work, education Contact-oriented Literacy: Reading, writing Guests domains Religion Friends Media: TV, radio Travel
Community-oriented domains include all places within the boundaries of the community, whether the place is an administration building or a neighbourhood, in the home or at the market, as long the setting stays in the unofficial realm. Interactions with friends living in the Shughni area and, therefore, part of the community, will fall under the realm of community-oriented domains whether or not the friends are ethnically Shughni. In the domains of administration, education and literacy, media and work, the Shughni community is tied into the broader national scene. In the domain of religion, the Shughni are connected with the larger community of Ismaili believers worldwide. Contact on a more personal level includes both guests and friends from outside the Shughni-speaking area, as well as travel to other parts of the country. In the rest of this section, we examine the implications of the dichotomy between community and contact domains for the patterns of language use, attitudes towards various languages, and levels of proficiency that were outlined in section 3. 4.1. Language Use
4.1.1. Language Use in Community versus Contact-Oriented Domains As shown in table 16, Shughni is either the only language or the dominant language in community- oriented domains. ‘S’ represents Shughni, ‘T’ Tajik, and ‘R’ Russian; a capital letter indicates the language is dominant and a lower case letter indicates it is secondary. Table 16: Language use in community-oriented domains Domain Language Home First learned S Cursing Arguing Unofficial setting: Work, School, University outside class Market: Shughni-speaking merchants S t
Functional domains domains Functional Hospital Counting Neighbours Spouse S Parents Children, with Friends S t
Social domains Social domains (Guests) 22
The table shows clearly that Shughni is the primary language of the home, with Tajik used as only a secondary language with children. Tajik plays a secondary role in some of the other community-oriented domains, but only with non-Shughni speakers. It is significant that Tajik plays, at most, a secondary role in most domains in the daily life of the Shughni community, even though it is respected and perceived as having high benefit. Shughni is used in most social settings or settings where the official status is lifted. Social settings include interactions with friends and neighbours, on the street and in the market; while settings where the official status is lifted include interactions before and after official meetings, between and after classes in school and university, and with colleagues at work. In hospitals, Shughni is used with Shughni-speaking patients. In Bajuv and Sardem, Shughni is the only language of communication for unofficial settings. No Tajik speakers live in Sardem and the few Tajik-speaking wives in Bajuv all learn and use Shughni. As shown in table 17, patterns of language use are reversed in contact-oriented domains. Here, Tajik and Russian are the dominant or only languages used, while Shughni plays a secondary role at most. Table 17: Language use in contact-oriented domains Domain Language Media: TV, radio T R Market: merchants from non-Pamiri areas Official setting: administration, work Education: school, university Hospital: patients from non-Shughni- speaking regions s T Counting Literacy: Reading, Writing Functional domains domains Functional Religion Travel
Guests s T (Friends) Social domains domains
Tajik is co-dominant with Russian in two domains: mass media and in the market with merchants from outside the region. Shughni has no role in these domains. Tajik is the dominant language in the other contact-oriented domains, although Shughni still plays a secondary role for people with lower levels of proficiency in Tajik. Tajik is also used with patients from Ishkoshim and Vanj, while Russian is used with those from Murghob. In official settings (including those in administrative and educational settings), Tajik, as national language, is seen as necessary and appropriate. According to a local administrator in the Shughnon administrative region, a conversation might be translated into Shughni if a person does not understand. People needing such translation are usually elderly people who have difficulties with Tajik. At least in Khorugh, the use of Tajik in official settings varies according to employment and gender. While people in educational and high contact professions generally use Tajik, people in medical professions tend to use Russian. Women tend to use Tajik in official settings less than men. 4.1.2. Opportunities and Language Use Choices As noted previously, opportunities for Shughni people to communicate with native speakers of Tajik are limited to a few contact-oriented domains including interaction with non-Shughni guests, during travel, or in official settings. In the domains of education and religion, use of Tajik is required. In this section, we examine the choices regarding language use that are made in the domains of education, religion, and with guests or during travel. Tajik is the medium of instruction in all primary schools, secondary schools and technical colleges in the Shughni region and at Khorog State University. Nearly all schools offer preparatory classes to introduce students to Tajik. Shughni is used for translating words and giving explanations up to grade one in all the 23 schools we visited. While Tajik is the only language used for instruction beginning in grade two in Roshtqal’a, it is used for explanations, especially in foreign language classes, in higher grades in Porshinev, Sardem, and Bajuv. Outside the classroom setting, Tajik is rarely used. Even in schools where teachers are encouraged to use Tajik with the students between classes, students generally use Shughni between themselves. Before and after classes students and teachers frequently use Shughni. Most religious literature and songs have traditionally been in Farsi or Tajik. Tajik is currently used during namoz (prayer), the official parts of weddings and funerals, and the reading of official letters from the Aga Khan. Arabic is used while reading from the Qur’an. At the same time, a number of religious leaders report using Shughni to explain the readings from the Qur’an and the religious books. The leader in the isolated village of Bajuv estimates that up to three quarters of the population do not understand Tajik well and need at least some translation and explanation in Shughni. Even in communities with higher levels of Tajik, questions are frequently asked in Shughni and can be answered in Shughni. Shughni is also used in unofficial and social aspects of religious gatherings in all communities.
A majority of guests are members of the extended family visiting from elsewhere in the GBAP or Tajikistan for holidays. Shughni is used with these guests. Tajik speaking guests include visiting government officials, work colleagues, or friends from university. Visits of such people are rare, and all members of the host family use Tajik with them to show respect. When travelling outside their own community, most people stay with relatives who speak Shughni in the home. Tajik is used with neighbours, in the street and market, and for all business when travelling. A few people also reported using Tajik with children who grew up in non-Shughni places such as Dushanbe. 4.2. Language Attitudes In all our research, we never encountered extremely negative attitudes towards any language. Knowing multiple languages is generally seen to be advantageous. Shughni is seen as positive in community-oriented domains and as neutral in contact-oriented domains. Tajik is neutral in community-oriented domains and slightly positive in contact-oriented domains. The attitudes towards Tajik are becoming increasingly positive as the government moves from conducting business in Russian to conducting business in Tajik. Table 18 graphically represents the attitudes towards Shughni and Tajik in community- and contact- oriented domains. Table 18: Language attitudes in domain categories Community-oriented Contact-oriented Domains Domains Shughni 1 0 Tajik 0 1 1= Positive, 0= Neutral, -1= Negative The following four basic attitudes summarize the attitudes of the Shughni people towards the Shughni and Tajik languages as summarized in table 18. 1. Shughni is the distinctive language of the Shughni region. It should be learned first by children and used within the community. This results in the expectation that people from other regions who live in the area will acquire Shughni to a level of proficiency that enables them to function socially in the community. It is used by Shughnis and recognized by non-Shughnis as an LWC of the GBAP. 2. At the same time, the usefulness of Shughni is seen as limited to GBAP, that is, ‘to the airport’ in Khorugh. In domains connecting the Shughni community to the outside world, Shughni is felt to be of little use. As it has a limited written or religious tradition, it is seen as inferior to Tajik in the domains of literacy and education, even though it is sometimes used in those domains. 3. Tajik is most useful in contact-oriented domains. It is useful for communicating with other people groups within Tajikistan and, of course, for finding a good job. It is traditionally valued in the domains of literature, education, and religion. 24
4. Although Tajik is valued in many domains of life, it is not seen as important within the family or the network of neighbours and friends. In community-oriented domains, therefore, it receives a neutral status. 4.3. Language Proficiency In this section we examine levels of proficiency in Shughni and Tajik in light of the patterns of language use and language attitudes discussed in the previous two sections. The positive attitudes towards Shughni in the family and communication as documented in section 3.2 results in the overwhelming use of Shughni in daily life. All generations acquire Shughni to a high level of proficiency in the home. The widespread use of Shughni in the home and community means that even non-Shughni members of the community need to acquire the language, at least to an average level of proficiency, in order to function in the community. This is true even for non-Shughni students and residents in the urban centre of Khorugh. While all members of Shughni communities develop high levels of proficiency in oral Shughni, most do not develop high levels of proficiency in written Shughni. The fact that Shughni is perceived as being limited to the traditional Shughni homeland, as well as the fact that Tajik is the traditional language of literature and education, seems to prevent the Shughni people from actively developing literacy in Shughni. At the same time, some limited forms of literacy in Shughni are used within the community. Turning to Tajik, the hypothesis concerning language proficiency in Tajik was stated in section 1 as follows: ‘Proficiency in Tajik is more dependent on the actual opportunities for use than on attitudes towards it.’ As we saw in section 3.2, Shughni people in all the communities we visited demonstrate positive attitudes towards Tajik. They consistently perceived it to be of high value in domains such as religion, information, and earning money. At the same time, there is considerable variation in the levels of proficiency found in the different communities. In the relatively isolated rural communities, such as Bajuv or Sardem, levels are generally low, while in less isolated communities, such as Khorugh and Porshinev, the levels are more variable. We suggest that this difference is due to the actual opportunities residents of these communities have to use Tajik. Residents of relatively isolated communities have limited exposure to Tajik. Most of these individuals seldom have the opportunity to use Tajik outside the classroom. It appears that schooling, in and of itself, does not offer sufficient exposure to Tajik to develop high levels of proficiency in the language. This would account for the generally low levels of proficiency in Tajik found in these communities. It also accounts for the fact that there is little variation in these communities, since there is little variation in the exposure residents in such communities have to Tajik. Individual exposure to Tajik plays a more significant role in less isolated communities. Individuals with high levels of contact with Tajik speakers and professionals who need to use Tajik frequently attain high levels of proficiency in Tajik, while people with locally-oriented professions tend to have a lower level of proficiency in Tajik. If levels of proficiency in Tajik are highly dependent on significant amounts of contact with Tajik speakers, we can expect that the range of proficiency levels might become wider in coming years if travel, education and social interaction depend to a greater extent on the economic situation of individual families.
5. Conclusion The Shughni people value their own vernacular highly, but are aware that its usefulness is limited to the Shughni region of the GBAP. Within the local community, Shughni unquestionably plays the dominant role. There is no indication that the role of Shughni within the community will change in the near future. Tajik has been and continues to be valued in the domains of education, official settings, and travel. The value that Shughni place on it, however, is not always reflected in the desired level of proficiency, especially in the case of individuals living in isolated communities who have minimal personal exposure to the language. This marginal role of Tajik within Shughni society might change as the GBAP becomes more open to tourism or other forms of travel and contact. 25
Appendix Raw Data for Table 4 and Table 5: Employment, gender and education of sample Employment
Age Gov’t Educ’n Med’l High Local None Total
Educ’n Cont 16–30 0 5 0 3 0 0 8 31–55 2 2 3 3 0 0 10 Higher > 55 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16–30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 55 1 0 1 5 1 0 8
Men Men – Tech > 55 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16–30 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 31–55 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 Middle Middle > 55 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 16–30 2 3 0 3 0 0 8 31–55 2 5 1 1 0 1 10 Higher > 55 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16–30 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 31–55 1 0 5 1 0 0 7 Tech
Women Women > 55 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16–30 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 31–55 1 0 2 3 0 1 7 Middle Middle > 55 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 12 18 15 22 5 5 77
Raw Data for Table 11: Patterns of language use at work as affected by employment
Shughni Tajik Other Employment Shughni only dominant dominant Tajik only dominant Government 4 2 4 0 1 Education 2 2 4 6 2 High contact 4 12 2 0 4 Medical 5 8 0 0 2 Local 5 0 0 0 0 None 0 0 0 0 2
Raw Data for Table 12: Patterns of language use in official settings as affected by employment Shughni Tajik Other Employment Shughni only dominant dominant Tajik only dominant Government 0 4 1 5 1 Education 2 0 2 12 0 High contact 1 0 6 12 1 Medical 1 1 8 1 4 Local 0 1 1 3 0 None 0 2 0 2 1 26
Raw Data for Table 13: Patterns of language use in work as affected by gender and age Shughni Shughni Tajik Other Gender Age only dominant dominant Tajik only dominant 16–30 2 2 0 2 1 Men 31–55 8 10 1 0 3 over 55 3 1 0 0 1 16–30 3 2 2 2 3 Women 31–55 4 7 6 2 3 over 55 0 2 1 0 0
Raw Data for Table 14: Patterns of language use in work as affected by gender Shughni Tajik Other Gender Shughni only dominant dominant Tajik only dominant Men 1 6 6 19 4 Women 3 2 12 16 3
27
References Alamshoev, M. M. 1992. М. М. Аламшоев. Система местоимений шугнанского языка (в сравнении с другими языками шугнано-рушанской группой памирских языков). Dushanbe. Davlatnazarov, M. 1992. М. Давлатназаров. Функциональная стратификация бесписьменного языка: Шугнанский язык. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. Dodykhodoev, R. Kh. 1977. Р. Х. Додыхудоев. К этимологии шугнанского топонима. In Вопросы иранской и общей филологии. Tbilisi. Dodykhodoeva, L. R. 1997. Л. Р. Додыхудоева. Социолингвистическая ситуация Горно-Бадахшана. In Малые языки Евразии: Социолингвистический аспект. Moscow. Dodykhodoeva, L. R. 1999. The sociolinguistic situation and language policy of the Autonomous Region of Mountainous Badakhshan: The case of the Tajik language. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. Dodykhodoeva, L. R. 2003. Comparative dictionary of key cultural terms in the languages and dialects of the Shughni-Rushani group of the Pamiri languages. Paper read at the First International Symposium on Field Linguistics, Moscow 23–26 October, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. Edelman, D. I. and Sh. P. Juchufbekov 2000. Д. И. Эдельман, Ш. П. Ючуфбеков. Шугнанский язык. In Восточноиранские языки. Vol. 3 of Языки мира: Иранские языки. Moscow: Indrik. Fasold, R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. New York: Blackwell. Geiger, W. 1895–1901. Die Pamirdialekte. Vol. 1 of Grundriss der Iranischen Philologie. Strasburg. Greenfield, Lawrence. 1970. Situational measures of normative language views in relation to person, place and topic among Puerto Rican bilinguals. Anthropos 65:602–618. Grimes, Barbara. 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 14 ed. Dallas: SIL International. Karamshoev, D. 1963. Карамшоев Д., Баджувский диалект Шугнанского языка. Dushanbe: Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan. Karamshoev, D. and M. A. Alamshoev. 1996. Д Карамшоев, М. А. Аламшоев. Хугнӯни зив: Алифбо. Dushanbe: Maorif. Ofaridaev, N. 2001. Н. Офаридаев. Ойконимияи Билояти Мухтори Кӯҳистони Бадахшон. Dushanbe. Sokolova, V. S. 1966. В. С. Соколова. Шугнано-рушанская группа языков. In Языки народов СССР: Индоевропейские языки. Moscow: Nauka. Stalder, Jürg, and Mark E. Karan. 2000. Assessing motivations: Techniques for researching the motivations behind language choice. In Assessing ethnolinguistic vitality: Theory and practice, selected papers from the Third International Language Assessment Conference, eds. Gloria Kindell and M. Paul Lewis, 189– 205. Dallas: SIL International. Tomaschek, W. 1880. Die Pamirdialekte. Centralasiatische Studien 11.